McGreal v. Concannon & Anor; McGreal -v- Court Services Staff & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff initiated two separate sets of proceedings. The first set of proceedings was against two individuals, hereinafter referred to as the Defendants, concerning alleged breaches of statutory and constitutional law related to the handling of an election civil bill in the Circuit Court. The Plaintiff sought damages and declarations of unlawfulness arising from these alleged breaches.

The second set of proceedings was against various members of the Courts Service, members of the Garda Síochána (police), the Garda Commissioner, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Courts Service. These proceedings arose after the Plaintiff attempted to issue a plenary summons without paying court fees and was refused by the Central Office. Following disturbances and the Plaintiff's arrest and detention for several hours, he issued these proceedings alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, obstruction of justice, and breaches of constitutional rights, seeking damages and declaratory relief.

Initially, the Plaintiff made an ex parte application for an order permitting the issue of plenary summonses without payment of court fees. The Court granted this on an ex parte basis, subject to the right of the Defendants to contest the matter later. Subsequently, the Defendants entered appearances, and the Plaintiff repeatedly challenged the validity of these appearances and brought numerous ex parte applications seeking various orders, including setting the proceedings down for trial and striking out appearances on grounds of unlawful representation.

The Plaintiff’s conduct included vociferous objections, interruptions during hearings, and a threat to arrest the presiding High Court judge, which the Court found to be abusive and an abuse of process. The Court repeatedly extended the time for filing appearances and adjourned matters to allow proper consideration of procedural issues.

Following further procedural disputes and multiple hearings, the Court directed written submissions on whether court fees were payable in either set of proceedings. The Plaintiff failed to file proper legal submissions but instead filed ex parte dockets and affidavits. The Court considered all materials in reaching its decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff’s first set of proceedings fall within the exception to court fees under Article 40.4 of the Constitution, thereby exempting them from payment of court fees.
2. Whether the Plaintiff’s second set of proceedings fall within the exception to court fees under Article 40.4 of the Constitution, thereby exempting them from payment of court fees.
3. The proper interpretation of "proceedings under Article 40.4 of the Constitution" in the context of statutory instrument 492/2014 and the scope of exemption from court fees.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff contended that neither set of proceedings required payment of court fees as they were proceedings under Article 40.4 of the Constitution.
• He argued broadly that his personal liberty had been infringed, including by denial of access to justice and procedural irregularities, thus engaging Article 40.4.1° protections.
• The Plaintiff challenged the validity of the Defendants' appearances, asserting unlawful representation and breaches of procedural rules.
• He submitted that the concept of personal liberty under Article 40.4.1° should be given a broad interpretation, extending beyond detention to a general right to live and act freely.

Defendants' Arguments

• The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff’s first set of proceedings did not constitute proceedings under Article 40.4 of the Constitution and therefore were not exempt from court fees.
• They maintained that the Plaintiff’s motion to set the matter down for trial was procedurally irregular and an abuse of process.
• The Defendants contended that the exemption from court fees under Article 40.4 refers only to habeas corpus proceedings under Article 40.4.2° and 40.4.3° and not to broader claims.
• They asserted that the Plaintiff had not complied with procedural requirements, including serving notices before seeking judgment in default of appearance.
• The Defendants emphasized that appearances had been validly entered and that the Plaintiff’s challenges to these were unfounded.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by examining the statutory framework governing court fees, specifically Section 65(1) of the Courts of Justice Act 1936 and Statutory Instrument No. 492/2014, which prescribes court fees and exceptions thereto. Section 5 of the statutory instrument exempts "proceedings under Article 40.4 of the Constitution" from fees.

The central question was whether either set of proceedings fell within this exemption.

Regarding the first set of proceedings, the Court analyzed the substance of the plenary summons. The Plaintiff’s claims related to alleged breaches of constitutional and statutory law in the handling of an election civil bill and procedural issues in the Circuit Court. The Court found that these claims did not amount to a deprivation of personal liberty as contemplated by Article 40.4.1°. The Plaintiff was not unlawfully detained or imprisoned; rather, he challenged procedural rulings and sought damages and declarations. The Court emphasized that a broad or metaphorical interpretation of personal liberty was unsustainable and that the Plaintiff had alternative remedies, including appeals.

Consequently, the Court concluded the first set of proceedings were not "proceedings under Article 40.4" and thus were not exempt from court fees.

In contrast, the second set of proceedings concerned allegations of false arrest, false imprisonment, unlawful detention, and breaches of constitutional rights including denial of access to courts and obstruction of justice. The Plaintiff sought declarations and damages for deprivation of personal liberty otherwise than in accordance with law.

The Defendants argued for a narrow interpretation, limiting the exemption to habeas corpus proceedings under Article 40.4.2° and 40.4.3°, but the Court rejected this. It held that the statutory instrument’s language was broader than the previous instrument and intended to cover all proceedings under Article 40.4, including declaratory and damages claims related to personal liberty under Article 40.4.1°.

The Court found that the second set of proceedings did qualify as proceedings under Article 40.4 of the Constitution and were therefore exempt from court fees.

The Court also critically addressed the Plaintiff’s conduct, including repeated ex parte applications, procedural irregularities, threats against the judiciary, and obstruction during hearings, characterizing these as abuses of process.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision was as follows:

• The Plaintiff’s first set of proceedings are not proceedings under Article 40.4 of the Constitution and therefore are not exempt from court fees. The Plaintiff must pay the relevant court fees in respect of these proceedings.
• The Plaintiff’s second set of proceedings are proceedings under Article 40.4 of the Constitution and are exempt from payment of court fees under the statutory instrument.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Plaintiff is required to pay court fees for the first set of proceedings but not for the second. The Court did not set any new precedent beyond applying established principles of constitutional interpretation and procedural law. The judgment also underscores the Court’s intolerance of abusive conduct and procedural impropriety by litigants.